Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 12 - Chapter 10

<w lemma="%2Aprw%3Dton">Πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="diaporh%2Fsai">διαπορήσαι</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fnas">τίνας</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Alokrw%3Dn">Λοκρῶν</w> <w lemma="parageno%2Fmenos">παραγενόμενος</w> <w lemma="e%29punqa%2Fneto">ἐπυνθάνετο</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w>. <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w>,

<w lemma="kaqa%2Fper">καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itali%2Fa%7C">Ἰταλίᾳ</w> <w lemma="%2Alokrou%2Fs">Λοκρούς</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftw">οὕτω</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fda">Ἑλλάδα</w> <w lemma="mi%2Fan">μίαν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxein">ἔχειν</w>, <w lemma="ta%2Fx%27">τάχ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fdei">ἔδει</w> <w lemma="diaporei%3Dn">διαπορεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="eu%29qew%2Frhton:">εὐθεώρητον·</w>

<w lemma="e%29pei%5C">ἐπεὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="du%2F%27">δύ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fqnh">ἔθνη</w> <w lemma="%2Alokrw%3Dn">Λοκρῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w>, <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="pote%2Frous">ποτέρους</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dlqe">ἦλθε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="poi%2Fas">ποίας</w> <w lemma="po%2Fleis">πόλεις</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%28te%2Frwn">ἑτέρων</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fsin">τίσιν</w> <w lemma="eu%28%3Dre">εὗρε</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkas">συνθήκας</w> <w lemma="a%29nagegramme%2Fnas">ἀναγεγραμμένας</w>; <w lemma="ou%29de%5Cn">οὐδὲν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w> <w lemma="diasafei%3Dtai">διασαφεῖται</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w>.

<w lemma="kai%2Ftoi">καίτοι</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dt%27">τοῦτ᾽</w> <w lemma="i%29%2Fdio%2Fn">ἴδιόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="%2Atimai%2Fou">Τιμαίου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fth%7C">ταύτῃ</w> <w lemma="parhmi%2Fllhtai">παρημίλληται</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllous">ἄλλους</w> <w lemma="suggrafe%2Fas">συγγραφέας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kaqo%2Flou">καθόλου</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7Cde%2F">τῇδέ</w> <w lemma="ph%7C">πῃ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29podoxh%3Ds">ἀποδοχῆς</w> ?<w lemma=""></w>* — <w lemma="le%2Fgw">λέγω</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnois">χρόνοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafai%3Ds">ἀναγραφαῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%2Ffasin">ἐπίφασιν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29kribei%2Fas">ἀκριβείας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="e%29pime%2Fleian">ἐπιμέλειαν</w> — <w lemma="dokw%3D">δοκῶ</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="ginw%2Fskomen">γινώσκομεν</w>.

<w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="qauma%2Fzein">θαυμάζειν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5Cn">ἐστὶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fcion">ἄξιον</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fnoma">ὄνομα</w>, <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="eu%28%3Dren">εὗρεν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpon">τόπον</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w> <w lemma="sumbai%2Fnei">συμβαίνει</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkhn">συνθήκην</w> <w lemma="a%29nagegra%2Ffqai">ἀναγεγράφθαι</w>, <w lemma="diesa%2Ffhsen">διεσάφησεν</w> <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frxontas">ἄρχοντας</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="dei%2Fcantas">δείξαντας</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafh%5Cn">ἀναγραφὴν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ou%28%5Cs">οὓς</w> <w lemma="e%29poiei%3Dto">ἐποιεῖτο</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w>, <w lemma="i%28%2Fna">ἵνα</w> <w lemma="mhdeni%5C">μηδενὶ</w> <w lemma="diaporei%3Dn">διαπορεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29ch%3D%7C">ἐξῇ</w> <w lemma="mhde%2Fn">μηδέν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="w%28risme%2Fnou">ὡρισμένου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpou">τόπου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w> <w lemma="e%29nh%3D%7C">ἐνῇ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29mfisbhtou%3Dsin">ἀμφισβητοῦσιν</w> <w lemma="eu%28rei%3Dn">εὑρεῖν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29kri%2Fbeian">ἀκρίβειαν</w>.

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="paraleloipw%5Cs">παραλελοιπὼς</w> <w lemma="dh%3Dlo%2Fs">δῆλός</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="suneidw%5Cs">συνειδὼς</w> <w lemma="au%28tw%3D%7C">αὑτῷ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fqesin">πρόθεσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29yeusme%2Fnw%7C">ἐψευσμένῳ</w>. <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftwn">τοιούτων</w> <w lemma="e%29pilabo%2Fmenos">ἐπιλαβόμενος</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5Cn">οὐδὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fleipe">παρέλειπε</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaios">Τίμαιος</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29pri%2Fc">ἀπρίξ</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="lego%2Fmenon">λεγόμενον</w>, <w lemma="a%29mfoi%3Dn">ἀμφοῖν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Dn">τοῖν</w> <w lemma="xeroi%3Dn">χεροῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29pe%2Ffu">ἐπέφυ</w>, <w lemma="profane%5Cs">προφανὲς</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w>.

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29exekra%2Ftous">Ἐχεκράτους</w> <w lemma="pi%2Fstin">πίστιν</w> <w lemma="a%29pereisa%2Fmenos">ἀπερεισάμενος</w> <w lemma="e%29p%27">ἐπ᾽</w> <w lemma="o%29no%2Fmatos">ὀνόματος</w>, <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fn">ὅν</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itali%2Fa%7C">Ἰταλίᾳ</w> <w lemma="%2Alokrw%3Dn">Λοκρῶν</w> <w lemma="poih%2Fsasqai">ποιήσασθαι</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgous">λόγους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3D">οὗ</w> <w lemma="puqe%2Fsqai">πυθέσθαι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w>,

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="proseceirgasme%2Fnos">προσεξειργασμένος</w>, <w lemma="i%28%2Fna">ἵνα</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="fanh%3D%7C">φανῇ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="tuxo%2Fntos">τυχόντος</w> <w lemma="a%29khkow%5Cs">ἀκηκοὼς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w> <w lemma="pate%2Fra">πατέρα</w> <w lemma="presbei%2Fas">πρεσβείας</w> <w lemma="kathciw%3Dsqai">κατηξιῶσθαι</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteron">πρότερον</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="%2Adionusi%2Fou">Διονυσίου</w>,

<w lemma="h%29%3D">ἦ</w> <w lemma="pou%2F">πού</w> <w lemma="g%27">γ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3Dtos">οὗτος</w> <w lemma="dhmosi%2Fas">δημοσίας</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafh%3Ds">ἀναγραφῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pilabo%2Fmenos">ἐπιλαβόμενος</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="paradosi%2Fmou">παραδοσίμου</w> <w lemma="sth%2Flhs">στήλης</w>

In the first place we are in doubt as to which of the Greek Locrians he visited for the purpose of inquiry.

For if the Greek Locrians, like the Italian, were confined to one city we should perhaps not entertain any doubt, but the matter would be perspicuous.

But since there are two sets of Locrians in Greece proper, we ask to which he went and to which of their cities and in whose possession he found the inscribed treaty; for he gives us no information on the subject.

And yet Timaeus's special boast, the thing in which he outvies other authors and which is the main cause of the reputation he enjoys, is, as I suppose we all know, his display of accuracy in the matter of dates and public records, and the care he devotes to such matters.

So it is most surprising that he has not informed us of the name of the city where he found the treaty or the exact spot in which it is inscribed, or who were the magistrates who showed him this document and with whom he spoke, so that no cause of perplexity would be left, but the place and the city being identified, those in doubt would have the means of discovering the exact truth.

The fact that he neglects to inform us on all these points is a clear proof that he knew he was deliberately lying. For that, had Timaeus got hold of such information, he would not have let a word of it escape, but, as the phrase is, would have held on to it tight with both hands, is evident from the following consideration.

Would the writer who mentions Echecrates by name as the man on whom he depends, having consulted him about the Italian Locrians and obtained this information,

the writer who, not to appear to have heard all this from a person of no importance, takes the pains to tell us that the father of this Echecrates had formerly been deemed worthy of employment as envoy by Dionysius —

would such a writer, I ask, if he had got hold of a public record or a commemorative inscription, have held his tongue about it?

Walbank Commentary

Overview

12.4.0 - 12.16.0

Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his criticisms of Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles <emph rend="bold">P.</emph> now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 23. 8) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this section (cf. Pdech, p. xviii). On the view that Timaeus' opinions about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 317. Aristotle's account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri was probably contained in his Constitutions, which may well have dealt with foundations too, for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 C) refers to them as <w lang="el-GR">κτίσεις καὶ πολιτεῖαι</w> (cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (London, 1912), xxix). In 11. 5 P. implies that Theophrastus shared Aristotle's account perhaps in his three books <w lang="el-GR">Νομοθετῶν</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which seem to have touched on Zaleucus (cf. Cic. de leg. ii. 15; ad Att. vi. 1. 18), or alternatively in his twenty-four books <w lang="el-GR">Νόμων κατὰ στοιχεῖον</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. 11); and indeed in his treatise On Drunkenness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer = Athen. x. 429). The reference is, however, merely to Timaeus' rejection of Theophrastus and there is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite 9. 1, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what he was told himself at Locri (cf. von Scala, 127; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this can be only a hypothesis). Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566 F 11) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or else out of his account of the history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Magna Graecia&groupId=728&placeId=1334">Magna Graecia</a> in the sixth century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F 11–12); Schwartz (Hermes, 1899, 484) argued that as the Locrian laws were usually attributed to Zaleucus (16. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean, Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), may well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. 1078). Aristotle's acceptance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from Locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their <milestone unit="page" n="330">[330]</milestone> husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds: <table cols="3" rows="8"> <row> <cell>(i)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7–8);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(ii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the inherited friendship of Locri with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> (6 a 2);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iv)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War 6 b 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(v)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian Locri <w lang="el-GR">ὡς γονεῦσι πρὸς τέκνα</w> (9. 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vi)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of sympolity between the two states (9. 4);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(viii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the constitution of Locri and its cultural institutions are similar to those of Locris (11. 5).</cell> </row> </table> P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid; they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12). They fall into two groups: those based on personal inquiry at Locri (5–6. 6), and those based on probability (6. 7–11. 5). But as between the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33. 9 n.); it seems to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan foundation (Paus. iii. 3. 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given additional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party struggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7. 1307 a 38, <w lang="el-GR">ἡ Λοκρῶν πόλις ἀπώλετο ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον κηδείας)</w>, which sought to bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315). Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian migr, Echecrates (10. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lokris&groupId=696&placeId=1275">Lokris</a>', cols. 1255–62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314–15, 1345–6; Dunbabin, 36–37, 183–5; Brown, 44–50; Brard, 201–6; Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 11–12; Lerat, ii. 22–25; Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12. On the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

Specifics

12.10.3 - 12.10.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐδὲν . . . διασαφεῖται τούτων</w>:</emph> Timaeus' failure to indicate whether he found the treaty among the eastern or western Locrians was careless, in view of the dispute as to which founded Locri (cf. 5. 6 n.), but he perhaps assumed that 'everyone who had read <milestone unit="page" n="345">[345]</milestone> Aristotle and Ephorus would know he meant East Locris' (Brown, 49). Pdech, on 5. 4, argues that if Timaeus admitted an alliance between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> and Locris during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5–10) this must imply that the Locris in question was West Locris, the nearer state; this is not decisive.

12.10.4 - 12.10.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ καθόλου τῇδέ πῃ τῆς ἀποδοχῆς</w>:</emph> there are various suggestions for the missing verb: <w lang="el-GR">τετύχηκε</w> or <w lang="el-GR">κατηξίωται</w> Reiske, <w lang="el-GR">τέτευχε(ν)</w> Cobet, Pdech (cf. 25 c 1), <w lang="el-GR">ἀντιποιεῖται</w> Hultsch, <w lang="el-GR">παρ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐνίοις ἀξιοῦται</w> Bttner-Wobst (cf. ii. 56. 1). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἐπίφασιν τῆς ἀκριβείας</w>:</emph> cf. Diod. v. 1. 3, <w lang="el-GR">μεγίστην πρόνοιαν πεποιημένος τῆς τῶν χρόνων ἀκριβείας καὶ τῆς πολυπειρίας πεφροντικώς</w>. For examples of Timaeus' concern with chronology and accurate documentation see 11. 1–3.

12.10.6 - 12.10.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δῆλός ἐστι συνειδὼς αὑτῷ . . . ἐψευσμένῳ</w>:</emph> P. fails to prove Timaeus a liar. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀπρίξ . . . ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν ἐπέφυ</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ἀλλὰ πρὶν</w> PF. Valesius' emendation is supported by Plato, Theaet. 155 E, <w lang="el-GR">ἀπρίξ τοῖν χεροῖν λαβέσθαι</w> (Wunderer's criticisms (i. 31) are hardly to the point). For other examples of this proverbial expression (Soph. Ajax, 310; Theoc. 15. 68 with schol., 24. 55) see von Scala, 283.

12.10.7 - 12.10.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἐχεκράτους</w>:</emph> perhaps Echecrates 'of Phlius', who with his friends was among the last Pythagoreans in Greece (Diog. Laert. viii. 46, following Aristoxenus). It was to him that Phaedo recounted Socrates' death (Plato, Phaedo, 57 A); and he was visited by Plato in Locri (Cic. fin. v. 87; Val. Max. viii. 7. ext. 3; cf. [Plato] ep. 9. 358 B). See further Diels, FVS, i. 443; Wellmann, RE, 'Echekrates (3)', col. 1910; Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 454 n. 139; RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315; suppl.-B. iii, 'Echekrates', col. 417. Oldfather, who suggested this identification, thought that Echecrates was a member of the Hundred Houses and that his presence at Phlius was due to the severe class-struggles which took place at Locri after the fall of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7. 1307 a 38; above, 5–16 n.); as an exile he naturally contradicted the democratic account of the origins of the Locrian aristocracy. This theory is attractive; but, as Brown (126 n. 23) rightly points out, P. calls his Echecrates neither a Phliasian nor a Pythagorean, nor an exile, and the identification therefore remains hypothetical. Against it is perhaps the chronology, for the Pythagorean Echecrates can hardly have been born after 420 (cf. von Fritz, 28); hence Stroheker (229–30 n. 139) suggests that he was Dionysius I's envoy (§ 8) and the father of Timaeus' informant. Timaeus logically mentions Echecrates' status as evidence of his reliability; there was no need to be equally specific about the Locrian documents, since he had seen them himself. P.'s argument here misfires (cf. Brown, 48).

12.10.8 - 12.10.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πρεσβείας κατηξιῶσθαι . . . ὑπὸ Διονυσίου</w>:</emph> probably Dionysius I. <milestone unit="page" n="346">[346]</milestone> This embassy probably links with Dionysius' attempt to win over the south Italian cities where there was a Pythagorean opposition (von Fritz, 75 ff.); cf. Diod. xiv. 105. 4; Polyaen. v. 2. 22. See Stroheker, 229 n. 139, who dates this after Dionysius' capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhegium&groupId=927&placeId=1659">Rhegium</a> in 386. Timaeus mentions this detail as evidence for the repute, and so reliability, of his informant.

12.10.9 - 12.10.9

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δημοσίας ἀναγραφῆς . . . ἢ παραδοσίμου στήλης</w>:</emph> 'public record or commemorative monument'.

Addenda & corrigenda

12.5.0 - 12.16.0

on the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary